Subject: | |
From: | |
Date: | Thu, 2 Dec 1999 22:12:12 -0500 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
First and foremost, I must apologize for my inability to conform to the
subscription protocol. Yes, it is Iain Simons. It's my automatic behavior
that gets me in trouble--just ask my wife, Sandra; oops! Now I've given it
all away.
At any rate, each and every point that you made with respect to FJ Haydn
I can't dispute. I was introduced to FJH's "Surprise" symphony during
my undergraduate years and I have always admired and sought works by Papa
Haydn. I believe that the title "the father of classical music" is a well
deserved one.
To me, FJH represents the order and beauty that epitomizes the classical
period. No one can argue that FJH represents the gap, as it were, between
the baroque and the purely classical. And, as you stated, what do we
compare this to?
Mozart, too, represents the classical period and the junior of FJH. His
opera compositions, I would argue, were beyond that of any classical
composer.
I find it difficult to argue in favor of Michael Haydn. All one has to
do is to listen and examine the compositional quality between the two
composers.
I must declare a certain degree of ignorance with respect to Hummel.
Perhaps someone could enlighten me? I'm only familiar with a couple of
his piano concertos and they could not even compare to WAM.
Boccherini???? Perhaps you're right in certain respects. He composed
with verve and elegance. He was much more redundant than WAM and tended
to sound more baroque than classical, however. As a composer of opera...I
don't think I need to say more.
To make a long story even longer: I agree that FJH was clearly a master,
a title that can never be disputed and never be compared to WAM. WAM was
a genius as well. He can not be compared to others and could never exceed
the accomplishments of FJH.
Regards, Iain Simons
|
|
|